#and then just. not elaborate. because apparently we all know the stories of every biblical guy who ever existed.

[blueskittlesart]

being in art school and having basically 0 knowledge about christianity whatsoever is so funny at this point i think you could tell me literally anything was an allegory for jesus and i'd just believe you

[ladyhindsight]

The climax of the story begins, though the writing has failed to give that effect. Maureen has lead Simon to a luxurious building because villains, aside from having cultured voices, like to do their dark magic in lofty settings.

CcLEaRrLyY. 

→ It was designed to look like...

I so hate these filler words that mean nothing. These read as observations and information perceived by Simon without words like seemingly, apparently, or as if. If the information is observable by the character, i.e. Simon does not have eyes in the back of his head or anything, these words are useless and annoying, though, I admit, a stylistic choice as well.

I will punch something.

→ They passed through an area where the construction crew had dumped their junk; there were broken tools lying around...

Simon and Maureen enter this magnificent building though an ornate lobby. In the lobby, there is a massive unlit chandelier that I swear to god is observed by each character that arrives in that building. 

Cut to Isabelle and co. noticing Simon is gone and trying to find him.

How courteous of Isabelle. The writing in this book is so insistent on hyping up Jordan’s appearance that it has spread everywhere. Every major character except for Jace think he is handsome and hot and bruh.

Alec joins the search party for Simon.

Not to be pedantic but on the previous page before they begin the search:

“He told me he was going to be right back. That was forty minutes ago. I figured he was going to the bathroom.”

😉

→ The party you were not invited to anyway. Be sure to send Luke and Jocelyn your regards.

→ From previous context on how Isabelle has behaved rather protectively over Maia, it’s rather evident from Isabelle’s behavior and doesn’t need such elaboration.

Isabelle thinks the tracksuit gang might have gotten Simon, so she, Maia, Jordan, and Alec decide to go and search Jordan and Simon’s apartment for clues on Simon’s whereabouts. And we cut back to Simon and Maureen who have arrived at a roof garden.

I will punch two things.

Did you know Simon is a vampire? Not that you could figure out how vampires experience the feeling of thread or come up with a metaphor or something other than what is often used for humans.

Simon is then faced with Lilith who takes a forever to introduce herself.

It is the cultured villain voice that returns. Shazam.

Does The Last Hours feature a Daylighter? Otherwise this seems like a waste.

The story goes for Biblical stories but refuses to touch upon the fact that a God apparently exists??

Lilith then explains the plot of the book to Simon.

→ Scrap this. It does not change anything in tonality.

This is the most ancient of demons, the very first of their kind, and what you do is write her doing these humanlike gestures. Lilith should be otherworldly, more supernatural than the supernatural things in existence, eons old and eons of experience, and not written like humans just shrugging.

→ Useless sentence.

→ Seaweed is a word that is at least three times used to describe Sebastian’s floating hair. It is specific and weird enough to be used so many times. This is the first.

Cut back to the Investigation Team in Alphabet City.

→ Isabelle leaned around the doorway. Maia was standing on one side of the kitchen counter...

→ I will gouge Jordan’s eyes out.

Jordan and Maia talk about their past.

This would be all fine and dandy if it, and I say it once again, was about giving Maia closure. But no, it’s about her and Jordan getting back together.

Investigation Gang finds out the band promoter card Lilit gave Simon with an address on it, and leave to investigate it. And back to Simon.

→ ...didn’t appear to be alive; he wasn’t breathing. But he wasn’t exactly dead, either. If he were dead, he’d look like he was in a lot worse shape than he did; it had been two months.

Are we prefacing Tessa?

Also, this is a bit late realization, but why didn’t the demon blood affect Jocelyn in any way but the angel blood she received gave her powers?

It’s great how even Lilith, the mother of demons, knows what Jace currently identifies as.

Lilith has been blabbering on how she was there all along and saved Sebastian to raise him from the dead, so I don’t get why she even bothers to interject herself with these useless questions, when she is going to tell it anyway.

→ It has not been revealed thus far in the series but how is the cup filled and what exactly is in it when the Ascendants drink from it?

Two go-to Clare things 1. describe eyes and their color with current emotion. 2. describe villains voice and tone

→ It’s also strange that, Simon being such a special vampire, no one ever bothered to research the topic to figure out the extent to his powers.

It is never explained why Simon needs to bite Sebastian or drink his blood. Why can’t he just give his straight to Sebastian?

→ “A world without Sebastian in it is a better world...” Simon’s deliberation is obvious if the name itself was emphasized, so you wouldn’t need to tell that he emphasizes it. 

Lilith then lays down the Old Laws of how resurrection work. Because one life was returned to the Light, one life must be returned to the Dark.

Repetitive.

Simon attempts to leave, but Lilith brings out her leverage. Jace appears, holding Clary hostage. Dun dun duuun.

But at least Simon, even during great duress, has the attention span to notice that the knife is, indeed, bone-handled. Because that should be the focus as well.

[makiema]

Possibility of an Eren vs the Devil final showdown

Okay so I saw @marley-warriors-of-demon-blood's post and I pondered over it for a few days. I finally had the time to write it all down. What I have to say draws a lot from the original post. I'd just like to mention some more hints that I picked up while doing my research along these lines.

First off, I'll elaborate on the recurring mentions of "devil" we get throughout the anime and the manga (also talk a bit about Paths) and secondly, on Isayama's subtle inclusions of numerous other Judeo-Christian references. All of it directly hints at a dramatic ending that may involve Eren, the protagonist, and the main antagonist- the Devil.

1. The Devil : We have had an eerie account of direct or indirect references to the Devil.

• One of the earliest comes from Bertholdt in Season 2 Ep 36 when we first hear him addressing Eldians as "spawns of the Devil"

• The next time we literally get to see the Devil is in Season 3 Ep 43 when Historia revisits her past and the book she reads show us the picture of the Devil and we also see Ymir Fritz for the very first time.

She's present in the story under the alias of Christa, who Freida points out to be a kind girl, always thinking about others.

However, this unsuspecting nature also makes her dangerously gullible and thus, the Devil tricks her into consuming the fruit which'd vest her with incredible powers that could be used to do some potential good work but also wreak havoc on Earth. The illustration was already a foreshadowing of the immediate future event whereby Rod Reiss would try to beguile Historia and get her to eat Eren but she'd see through the ploy and stand up against him. But, that's a different topic and I don't want to digress from my primary point. However this illustration carried an even darker foreboding as we'd realize in the course of the manga.

• The next implication comes from Floch, quite shockingly, during the Serum bowl, also in Season 3. We find him referring to Erwin as the "devil" out of nowhere, that too twice.

It was horrifying yes, but could it be a darker message for events yet to unfold? Surely Isayama wouldn't drag in the word "devil" out of nowhere. Also, another thing I want to point out here is Levi's decision of finally using the serum on Armin. No, not the usual why (because by now it's clear that he wanted Erwin to rest) but whether or not this action of his, that earned him hard opprobrium from almost half the fandom, had some underlying meaning for us. Maybe more than the shock factor, the serum bowl was allegorical of future events- that the Devil, like Erwin here, is not dead yet and has been playing the strings since eons ago; that the character who is following in Levi's footsteps, i.e., Eren will have to make a difficult choice (which is why Isayama had been stressing on how he'll hurt the fans in the conclusion) and bring an end to the Devil who is still at large. Choosing Armin over Erwin seems to be an absurd decision from a logical pov and Levi's action maybe more than just "letting him rest". Isayama loves foreshadowing. Killing off such an important character could very well be an indication of something more than what's visible on the surface. Perhaps, it was symbolical of how, in the near future, the actual devil, who shares the same caliber as the Commander in plotting, will be forced to rest by Eren, who was trained by Levi to make difficult choices by himself.

• After this , Eren Kruger mentions how "anyone can be the God or the 'Devil' " in Episode 58, while also explaining how everything is connected by PATHS.

• The final and the clearest reference to the Devil is found in Wily Tybur's speech where he informs us of his devilry and we also come across Ymir Fritz, the girl who fell into his trap, and apparently consumed "the source of all organic matter".

There couldn't have been a more prominent Biblical allusion than this one. Now, endowed with such power, Ymir Fritz sets off with beneficial work but, as per the Curse of Ymir, she dies in a few years and we learn that her power is eventually divided into Nine Titans.

• The Devil and PATHS : Only, in chapter 115, do we realize that she hasn't died or at least her spirit hasn't (I'll elaborate on this later). She's STILL very much functional in PATHS - this another universe or another place (whatever term you deem fit for it). When I say functional, I mean how she has to tend to and help her subjects respawn as per the contract with the Devil.

However, notice the rather dark shading on her face? Those are similar to Isayama's signature stress lines that indicate Ymir Fritz is in pain or at least, she doesn't look like she's willingly up for kneading soil to help her subjects reincarnate. Now, if Ymir Fritz from Tybur's tale is still active, how can we rule out the possibility that the devil is active too? PATHS connects the future and the past. Eren Kruger can send words of advice to the future via PATHS, every shifter who's endowed with powers of the past has access to PATHS. In short, PATHS could be the place of any probability. PATHS is the place that warps time, history and even reality. If Ymir Fritz has indeed digested 'the source of all organic matter on Earth', then PATHS, where Ymir Fritz is struck, could be what supports this source or more clearly, it is what nourishes the root of the Titan Power. We know that Ymir Fritz obtained the source from the Devil and now, if PATHS is like nourishment to the source and is sort of a massive energy center (where even the concept of time is lost) it might very well be the Devil's residence or the physical manifestation of the Devil's will. The Devil, as part of a greater ploy, intended to do away with mankind and wreak havoc and that's why duped Ymir Fritz, a naive young girl, into consuming something that'd bind her and her progenitors to his evil will forever by genetic alterations, making it susceptible to his wilful morphing. With this, the main plot that revolves around slavery can finally reach an end. And breaking that tie to the Titan DNA, by destroying the Devil or PATHS (which helps the Devil to enslave Eldians/Subjects of Ymir no matter the era) could resolve the main issue and pave the way to freedom. If Eren does that, it'd be poetic given that Eren Kruger said that the Attack Titan and it's owner has always chased freedom. It's only fair that the Attack Titan (the embodiment of freedom) destroys PATHS (the embodiment that allows slavery). It all sets out beautifully and maybe this is the reason why Isayama even ensured that we get to see PATHS animated as early as in Season 2 Ep 10. Thus, we get a sneak peek of it in Ymir's memory.

It just gives more corroboration to my hunch that PATHS is THAT important and can possibly be the abode of the Devil and hence, be crucial in the endgame. Also, isn't it ironic how Ymir says "I saw freedom spread out before me" in this scene? Or could Isayama be hinting at a possible conclusion that Eren would finally achieve freedom once he is also in PATHS dimension and destroys it? That this scene would be included so early in the anime but not carry some deeper meaning just doesn't settle well.

2. Other Judeo-Christian references : The manga is brimming with those but I'd just point out to a few as some interpretations may seem too far off and I have the habit of snowballing every minute detail.

• Violets : These flowers keep popping up time and again and is even there in the very beginning of the show. Eren wakes up crying from his 'dream-vision' and we find those violets right beside him.

We again see these flowers very briefly under Armin when Eren consciously transforms for the very time in Season 1 Episode 10. This was not in the manga but Isayama wanted this to be animated. He wouldn't have stressed on the importance of including the violets if he didn't have a motif.

Violets have strong religious connotations in Christianity. They blossomed when Gabriel told Mary of her son's impending birth. Now, Gabriel is the Angel who communicates with humankind and thus stems the potential meaning associated with violets - connections. The symbolism is a very important one as it could be a allegory to how PATHS connects the future to the present, connects all the Subjects Of Ymir. Isayama even canonically included the violets in PATHS dimension in Chapter 115, when Zeke meets Ymir Fritz.

Isayama's emphasis to add violets in the anime and also later, to draw them in PATHS couldn't be for naught. The flowers and what they stand for must be crucial in the final resolution. Also, just as violets blossomed when the birth of the Saviour was prophesized, here in the the SnK universe, violets pop up when Eren is in the frame in the very beginning and when he first reveals his power, indicating he'd be the eventual saviour. If Eren is an allusion to Christ it also justifies what Isayama said : that he wants to 'hurt' the readers. We all know about Christ's sacrifice and perhaps Eren is also going to do something similar which will leave the readers hurting.

• Allusions to literary classics : There are a lot of allusions to Dante's Inferno and even to Milton's Paradise Lost, both of which borrow heavily from mythology and the Bible. But, I'd discuss the ones that I found the most suggestive-

1. Nine : The power of the Devil that Ymir Fritz inherited was split into Nine Titans. In Inferno, we get the Nine Circles of Hell that will eventually lead the poet to Satan. And like we have discussed before, the Devil has striking semblances to Satan. Satan lies below the Nine Circles of Hell and the Nine Titan Powers combined is equivalent to the power the Devil possessed. Uncanny similarity, eh?

2. Ymir and Virgil : Like @marley-warriors-of-demon-blood mentioned, Ymir Fritz is currently caught in a Limbo. She was just a naive little girl and hence, what ensued from her making a deal with the devil wasn't technically her fault. In Inferno, Virgil is distraught similarly- fated to remain trapped in Limbo forever. Now, like I said earlier, PATHS is connected to everything. And Limbo, the first circle of Hell, is also connected to the later circles. I hypothesized in a previous post how I think Ymir Fritz and Eren will meet next in the manga. (with Eren being decapitated and everything) Virgil was the one that guided Dante in his journey in Inferno and Ymir Fritz, currently just a lost spirit in another dimension, may become Eren's guide. She can advise the holder of the two most powerful Titans (the Attack and the Founding) on ways to resolve Eldia's problem by killing it's source, i.e., the Devil, considering she's really a girl with good intentions. This would also resolve her character arc properly. She'd get a stance in the story and not just be someone who was used by the Devil for his conspiracy. After all there's no one more suited for the task than Eren. I'm probably taking it too far but I do think Ymir will have a similar role like Dante. Both are caught in the Limbo, both are not at fault, and both are destined to meet the protagonist.

3. The Crystal : Annie enclosing herself in impenetrable crystal, which outwardly looks very much like ice, could be an allusion to Satan again. In Inferno, he's trapped in ice at the centre of the Earth. Annie is being held captive 'underground'. A very similar process is applied for Satan. He's held underground too and he's enclosed in hard, impenetrable ice, akin to Annie's crystal.

4. Paradis : The name itself could be suggestive of Paradise, i.e., the Garden of Eden, which is mentioned in the Bible as well as in Paradise Lost. The place is described as magical. The 'Paradis' in Isayama's story is not far from being extraordinary and is peppered with rare resources as Kiyomi points out in Chapter 107.

It has "the forest of giant trees", a plethora of resources, and is teeming with diversity. It's equivalent to a biodiversity hotspot, a very rare place on Earth. It has an aura of supernaturality and extravagance, much like the Paradise of Milton. Also, the whole Satan luring Eve with the apple thing (and the Devil's likewise conniving) is also mentioned in Paradise Lost.

So, in conclusion, with this many underlying religious motifs it's highly possible that the Devil is the ultimate villain, like Satan is in Christianity, and Eren's final confrontation is going to be with him- the one who is the root cause of all evil. Even the final exhibition gave a lot of importance to the Devil tricking Ymir Fritz scene. It definitely has much more significance than is apparent.

One of the key themes in SnK has been gray morality. All the characters have their own reasons to justify their commiting the most horrible atrocities they inevitably had to, as per orders. Marley is not exactly on the wrong for torturing and ghettoing Eldians. They fear power that can actually trample on the whole world. Eldia is, of course, not at fault. Their genetic make up may spell impending danger but that doesn't make them any less human. They're cursed alright but that doesn't automatically strip them off their humanity. They have as much right to live as Marleyans. In fact, as we have seen Eren reinforcing from time to time, "Nobody has the right to take that away from us".

Here, Eren also expressed his denial of any plan that even remotely suggested using this probability of turning into a Titan as a weapon to fight. Thus, we can trust that what Eren aims will cause the eradication of this possibility altogether. He will make it so that such a cruel way of fighting doesn't exist ; that nobody will have to be forced to turn into a Titan and die no matter the cause. And the only possible way to do away with this is to kill it's source : the source being the Devil or his instrument, the PATHS.

But, even if nobody is at fault, one cannot veil the truth that Titans exist or rather, the Titan DNA and the inadvertent possibility of an Eldian turning into a Titan exists. It still looms in the SnK universe like 'the grim reminder' we have heard over and over again in the anime. The reminder of humanity being caged and the humility of living under constant fear of Titans popping up suddenly called for invariable Fighting since the very beginning and had also inspired the chase for Freedom. So, how will Isayama bring the main plot/theme revolving Fighting for Freedom to a close? Of course, the answer is by ending slavery in all forms, including Eldians being a slave to the Devil via their fundamental genetic constitution. The Devil is the one responsible for making them Titans, for making the world see them as dreadful enemies. He is the one infringing on their right to freedom and right to live. Thus, Eren WILL face off with the Devil, the cause of all slavery in their world, and finally bring Freedom to humankind. After all, hasn't Eren's character always been all for freedom and for detesting and aiming to do away with every possible form of slavery? If the Devil's very existence is the cause of Eldians being a slave to devilish power, it's only fair that the one character, who has reasserted the importance of Freedom more noticeably than any other throughout the story, is the one that brings the curtain down on the Devil and all his ploys of enslavement and wreckage, consequently freeing his men.

[gracedgirlandie-blog]

True. This is why I don't join certain churches. Some are the most prejudging groups you'll ever know. They won't even give you a chance as a person. They literally introduce themselves to you with forced robotic smiles and handshakes by asking you what's your religion and literally make their first five minutes with you calling you a sinner and stating all that's wrong with your church and about how theirs knows the Bible more and then they pick on even the tiniest most insignificant traditions of your life like celebrating birthdays and mentioning the name of Santa Claus and they conclude the whole chitchat by stating that unless you're in their group of people, they won't have shit to do with ya because you'll just drag them to Hell. It's like the entire chitchat was just a commercial for self-promotion of how they know the Bible better and are more knowledgeable on it scholastic-wise and barely even here about Jesus in the entire sermon. And then finally it comes to the testimony that they have to share and I take a sigh of relief that finally I can hear about Jesus for once. But, no, it's another session of rubbing in your face how they don't really feel God in your church but He's so evident in theirs and another five minutes of how they used to be total criminals while they were in your church but when they registered to this one, all of a sudden, they became "better than you". Like... dude... I came here to learn about Jesus... not learn every five minutes how you are "so much better" than me. And then they laugh about news of refugees dying because they "didn't have God with them" but "they did". And then they'd cheer on Donald Trump for putting up the wall to prevent entry of the "demons" that will drag them to Hell. The only two things you'll ever learn from being with them is that they're "better than you", and how to give the perfect BJ, because apparently they studied the Word and digested it and read clearly in the rules that it's only immoral when you stick it in the other end so then you're a sodomite and have no chance of being forgiven (unless you join their church that is) and are going to Hell. Before them, I never even knew what a BJ was, but they proudly brag about how they do it ten times a week. So studious of the Word indeed and of it's clear-cut rules and also so studious about Sex Ed. Ten minutes later, they're there giving you the hottest tips to the perfect one-night stand and their top-ten list of the perfect guys (including someone else's husband) to bang in their own bedroom because Queensland is apparently immoral and only for those who celebrate Sinulog, a tradition for "outdated barbarians". Thanks for telling me how you got the latest software update on Jesus Christ. Is the list of guys updated too? Because I also hear from some of them how there are those who are "too ugly to get laid by". I mean, those things don't even enter my mind. I look at a person and see someone beautiful and don't even analyze if he's even good-looking enough to get it on with. And if he's not, it's not like I will stop mingling with him like he's another demon that will drag me to Hell. And then with such confident smug smiles, they'd challenge you to list down what your church has that theirs doesn't that can make you study the Bible more conducively in yours, and they'd be ready to rebutt. I mean, I'd rather listen to the continuous gospel on Jesus by a grown guy wearing a tunic who sticks his privates into little boys' butts and then asks people to "mana po" to him later than to not learn a sentence straight at all and without the lesson being paused for another commercial of themselves. I mean, it can be pretty distracting to the lesson hearing every few verses how "I was once a Catholic too, but I got the software update so you can never call me lame and old-fashioned." get rubbed on your face. I'm not saying either that the other is holier with the way they completely disrespect their perfectly-working bodies and blame it all on chivalry and heroism and being the perfect spouse and yet contradict it with the way they treat and make to look like the very people they claim they're being chivalrous for, and as if that's even the only thing to love and completely ruling out the things of the heart which are what really matter and what really make up a person... and then judge their members' relationships whether rightfully or by their made up rules of physical heirarchy basing on their own looks of who's a bigger treat to who and who deserves who and who doesn't give justice to someone else's chivalry and who's an overall unworthy spouse... and then use their assumed righteousness to gain position and then assume this position as a sign of popularity which they also assume is a sign of attractiveness and then they ostracize who they reject as if it's a popularity show of who has the most supporters when really it's a religious community not American Idol. But at least that one is ad-free. But the sermon I'd wanna listen to the most is from someone who preaches it with his life and actions, because how you see Jesus in someone ain't from what is written on the religion section of their birth certificate if he got the "updated" label or the "barbaric" one. Words are so unnecessary and don't always prove anything. Neither does religion. And I'm sorry to tell you that yours is one too. And it's not gonna help if you give me another debate where in you lay down all the scholastically-defined rules of how you're not a religion. In fact, that just proves my point. I don't exactly see Jesus in you. I see Donald Trump. I see Hippocrates the Third, but at least the real dude is actually smart. And if you don't give other people the right to love Jesus with their lives unless they are part of you as if His name is under your copyright, then I'm sorry to say that you really are a religion. Nothing special. I came here to love, not to be fought and then made to feel like shit... only to gain nothing in the end. I never heard of Jesus preaching that way. For all I know, He gained His saved souls with love... just love. 🤷🏼‍♂️ And when you reject their offer to take you in their church, they have to let you elaborate with an impromptu speech. And when you just tell them it's because you can't see Jesus in them, they let you elaborate further. Then they whip out a Bible, a highlighter, a notebook and a pen and just go quoting all sorts of verses and making very scholastic equations and references that even stray so far into becoming no longer what the Bible even meant (Yes, I've read the Bible in full... word for word... cover to cover... over and over... with all my heart and asking Jesus to send me His Holy Spirit to guide me every so often. But they also bashed me all with a very plastic laugh of how "cute" it was that I thought I was doing it right and how I'm so "murang korek" attempting on my own the official Bible study their church would do and how "cute" it was that I tried to get all the steps right on my own without really an official brand and an offical program and an official strategy and criticized my order of reading the books in it like they even laughed how I should have read John first and then so on and so forth and then do this silly activity between those books by beating up a piñata superhero to teach me a Biblical lesson the fun and "fancy" way which my church never can because it's so "lame" and "outdated" and traditional.) but just stretched those words to sound so fancy just to prove to prove to you that Jesus is really in them all with a very forced plastic smile as they really rub it on you how Biblically undeducated you are which you wouldn't have been if you just joined their "perfect" program. And if you just leave and say sorry and do not want any more to deal with them, they give the most plastic smile and handshake and say they were just looking for their fellow saved souls and were just trying their luck if you were one of them but they realized they were wrong. Which is really another way of saying you're going to Hell. All with that very plastic smile on their face before they leave you. Last time I checked, Jesus never inflicted that much hopelessness into other people's souls... all for the sake of a self-promoting club. Last time I checked, He came to encourage and give hope even to the worst of sinners... even the one crucified beside Him... and on the very last minute. And that was what He loved for, to give them hope. And that was what He unified us all for... our shared hope. The fact that we're all sinners and we're all different and we're all sinners sinning in different ways... but we all share a hope. And that is what's supposed to unify us. And if you read the Bible, it doesn't exactly talk about hopelessness at all... like at all. If you read between the lines like you claim you do, we all fit the definition of sinners that should be burning in Hell... yet we all fit the definition of the kind of people He died for. We all fit the definition of people who deserve a second shot at life... and not just if we're registered in your club just because you think you copyrighted official repentance. Which is why the Bible never terrified me for all my life even when I think it's the scariest book there is but even inspired me and gave me a renewed sense of hope. It's literally the sweetest love story ever if you read between the lines. And this is the love story that's supposed to bind us all... because it's for us all. But what you're doing is just defeating the purpose. When I got exempted by an Ivy League college from taking the IELTs as a teen for reading comprehension results in the SAT, I immediately grew proud and thought of myself as better in reading the Bible than other people and I thought this was the actual blessing. But then I realized the real gift God gave me to really understanding the Bible was the ability to approach His Word with a HEART. It's not always about updatedness and being "scholastically better". Always, it's about heart. And that's the essence of being truly someone that is in Christ. You really don't need much brains or even any to have a heart. And that's exactly all He's asking which is exactly all you're trying to kill... in exchange for the qualities that don't even matter in anyone's journey to Christ... to the point that being RIGHT now means more to you than being RIGHTEOUS. You're killing all the qualities of heart for the qualities of ego. And that's defeating what Jesus has been trying to accomplish. What people are doing trying to form their own clique of who they think would be better than the other clique reminds me of the story of the Tower of Babel when people used the language they were even blessed to have to unify them to build themselves up in their pride rather than the name of God and used the gift of unification for division and so God took that unification away. They used what God gave them as a bridge, flipped it sideways and turned it into a wall. Ironic. Like the real Iron Wall. It was meant to be a bridge, it looked like a tower, but, really, it was a wall. I don't see anything different with what people are doing these days. God blessed us with His Son to unify people of all descriptions in the name of Love which is Himself, and we used it for division all over again. It's like a clique competition all over again to be the greatest... this time, using the name of God for the gimmick instead of a tower. This time, they're using churches. And the resemblance to the former story is uncanny. It's like the Church of Babel, and now the real one thing we're supposed to be bonding over has lost His spot in the story. Ego has taken His place. Fortunately, God does not take this gift away. He gives it freely, so we should share it, not copyright it. So what's really dividing us all is the lack of heart and the presence of ego in it's place. Creating a heirarchy and drawing the lines of what makes who better and what makes who less is literally segregating people on a shelf and is in no way reaching out to embrace each one in the same group hug... all out of the desire to be on the highest seat like a game of natural selection when He clearly said He's in it to save each one and go through all means for that goal... the goal our individual prides are trying to kill. Even Charles Darwin on his deathbed knew and said he was wrong... so why can't you? I guess that's why He in all His genius crafted out the first step to accepting Him... as humility. As what my 2016 documentary, Loved Biochemically and Beyond, pointed out... love finds it way in absolutely everything, even the science we know, to be the answer to everything. And the real meaning of Jesus who Himself is God is that Himself is Love. But now, I realized something else... the source of all the problems in the world: humans and their clashing egos. And this is real idolatry... when the God you worship is your own ego. And the worst thing that can happen to humanity is when we remove God who Himself is Love from His spot on the altar and put our individual selves on the spot. That's the perfect recipe for World War III. And so the real name of the devil... is ego. And many churches and even non-churches worship that beast.

[eretzyisrael]

Don Seeman

In 1845, Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Mikhel Wisser, better known by his acronym and nom de plume ‘Malbim,’ published his first biblical commentary, on Megillat Esther. Malbim is often characterized as a conservative commentator who defended traditional rabbinic exegesis and the sanctity of biblical texts. Yet his underappreciated commentary on Esther also contains the seeds of a radical political hermeneutic that might even be described as “proto-feminist” because it explores the political roots and consequences of women’s oppression. We are used to thinking of Esther as a heroine who saved her people, but Malbim’s analysis goes beyond the role of any individual person to describe how it was, in his view, that the systematic disempowerment of women in general helped to create the political conditions for genocide in Megillat Esther. This is a shockingly modern sort of analysis for a commentator better known for his fierce opposition to religious reform in the lands he served as rabbi.

For Malbim, the mise en scene of Esther is Ahasuerus’ meteoric rise to power and the political intrigue that would have accompanied such an upheaval. He notes, for example, that the biblical story begins just three years into Ahasuerus’ reign, when he still would have been consolidating power, and cites a midrash that portrays Ahasuerus as a commoner who seized power.[1] This is not historical research. Instead, it is a form of biblical interpretation grounded in rabbinic exegesis and it needs to be appreciated in that vein.

Crucially for his account of gender politics in this book, Malbim adopts a midrash that portrays Vashti as a daughter of the supplanted royal house, suggesting that her marriage to Ahasuerus would have been a political matter contributing to the legitimacy of his new regime.[2] This in fact is the heart of the story that Malbim wishes to tell, because it helps to make sense of the first two chapters of the book whose proliferation of details about drinking and life in the capital might otherwise have seemed superfluous. For Malbim, Ahasuerus’ political dependence on his wife sets up a dynamic of murderous intrigue that reverberates through the book.

Political Prologue: “It’s Good to be the King!”

In his somewhat lengthy prologue to the commentary, Malbim elaborates on two broad theories of government that would have been very familiar to his nineteenth century readers. In a limited or constitutional monarchy, he writes, royal power is constrained by law and by a conception of the common good. Sometimes the king even needs to demonstrate that he has received the consent of the governed. Not so the absolute or unlimited monarch, who rules by fiat as both lawgiver and king simultaneously. In Malbim’s account—which he tries to illustrate through close reading of biblical and rabbinic texts—Ahasuerus seized power from a constitutional monarch but was set on absolutizing his rule through a series of very intentional stratagems that required him to sideline or eliminate his wife. Faced by the ancient rabbinic conundrum whether to portray Ahasuerus as a wise or a foolish king, Malbim decides from the outset to treat him as someone who knows what he wants and works deliberately to achieve his goals.[3]      

This kind of excursus in political philosophy is unusual among rabbinic commentators, but it is crucial to Malbim’s methodology, lending vital context to the plethora of small details on which he builds his interpretation. Why, for example, would Scripture devote so much attention to the lavish parties Ahasuerus held for his servants and subordinates throughout the whole third year of his reign? Malbim’s answer is that no mere constitutional monarch could have opened the state coffers so brazenly for his own aggrandizement. Ahasuerus understood that people would be less likely to object to the precedent he was trying to set if they were included among its early beneficiaries.[4]

Why specify, furthermore, that Ahasuerus had invited three distinct groups to these parties: the nobles and princes of Persia, the nobles of the (conquered) provinces and ultimately “all the people who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small?”[5] As a commoner who had seized power in a large and centralized empire, Ahasuerus wanted to signal that the traditional Persian elites (who would have been most likely to challenge the legitimacy of his rule) had no more access to him than anyone else. Extending invitations to lowly servants conveyed to Ahasuerus’ more privileged guests that “both great and small are equal before him for all are [merely] his servants.”[6]

This flattening of the political structure may not have immediately weakened the Persian nobility but it would have stoked the fires of a fiercely populistic loyalty to the new king among the leaders of the disenfranchised, non-Persian provinces and the lower Persian classes who had been systematically excluded from most of the benefits of the constitutional—but colonial and deeply class conscious—state Ahasuerus had come to dominate.        

Malbim certainly gives signs in his commentary of a preference for constitutional monarchy, yet he implicitly lays the groundwork for a critique of both constitutional and authoritarian regimes. Ahasuerus’ attention to the provinces and to the servant class of Shushan could not have been successful unless there were already deep reservoirs of disaffection throughout the empire. Malbim never says this in so many words, but the pretense of a state governed by law for the common good may not have appealed so much to the provincial nobles chafing under imperial rule or the underclass of Shushan whom Ahasuerus had been so careful to flatter. Malbim’s deep personal intuition for the workings of power in social contexts makes him a profound commentator on a book devoted to the intrigues of a royal court, but these same intuitions sometimes seem to outstrip his commitment to critical analysis of the world beyond the text.

Every Man Should be Master in his Own House: On Misogyny and Power

Vashti, we have seen, poses a special problem for Ahasuerus. She is at once the key to his legitimacy in the eyes of the traditional Persian elites and the most distressing evidence that his independent power is limited. So, at the end of his long populist campaign, when his heart was “merry with wine,” Ahasuerus cleverly sends his chamberlains to summon the queen.[7] Sending his own servants rather than those who normally attend upon her was meant, in Malbim’s reading, to signal his disrespect. If she answered his call it would be a symbolic victory for him and if she refused it might present him with an opportunity to move against her. Directly attacking her dignity as the daughter of a royal house, he he also summons her “to show the people and the princes her beauty,” as if her attractiveness outstripped the importance of her royal person and pedigree.[8] By demanding that she appear wearing her royal crown, according to one well-known midrash, the king went so far as to intimate that she should appear before the gaze of his servants, dressed in nothing else.[9]

Malbim pointedly ignores several popular midrashim that attribute Vashti’s refusal of the king’s summons to mere vanity because she had developed a skin disease or even (miraculously) grown a tail.[10] I consider it a scandal of Jewish education that these fanciful midrashim belittling Vashti are often the only ones taught to children, while more substantive readings like Malbim’s are ignored. Ever the close reader, Malbim notes that Ahasuerus called for “Vashti the Queen,” putting her private name first to emphasize that her status was derived from marriage to him while she responds as “Queen Vashti,” emphasizing that her own rank came first.[11] Read this way, her refusal of the king’s summons constitutes a self-conscious act of political resistance because she understood what her husband was trying to accomplish at her expense.

Baiting Vashti in this way would have been a dangerous strategy for Ahasuerus because the Persian nobility was likely to side with her in any serious dispute. Malbim thinks that Ahasuerus still loved her and did not wish her condemned to death but that his advisor Memukhan ultimately prevailed with the argument that Vashti’s public challenge had to be treated as an offense of the state if Ahasuerus’ plans for unlimited government were ever to be achieved.[12] Her offense should not, moreover, be framed in the context of Ahasuerus’ political struggle with the last remaining representative of the old royal house but as a woman’s rebellion against her husband, thus implicating every man in the desire to see her put in her place. Ahasuerus’ cabinet would have to work quickly, because Malbim assumes that both Vashti and the Persian noblewomen with whom she had feasted had already seen through this subterfuge and might work to subvert it.[13] So they released a royal edict banning her from the king’s presence almost immediately before following up with seemingly unrelated letters “to every province according to its writing and to every people according to their language that every man should be master in his own house and speak according to the language of his people.”[14]

On the level of political rhetoric, Ahasuerus’ executive order must have seemed a master stroke because of all that it simultaneously accomplished. Malbim thinks that by emphasizing that the letters were to be sent in the diverse languages of the polyglot empire, Ahasuerus was once again stoking popular resentment against the Persian elites who used to demand that all state business be conducted in Persian.[15]Apparently, “cultural diversity” can be coopted by authoritarian state power as easily as any other ideology under the right circumstances. More importantly, Ahasuerus’ letter would have distracted people from his naked power grab by disguising it as the utterly ordinary resentment of a husband whose wife has defied him, guaranteeing the support of other men who feared the rebellion of their own wives in turn. Could he have found a more potent strategy for harnessing their resentment? In the 1970’s it began to be said in some quarters that “the personal is political,” but Ahasuerus’ letters represent the utter suppression of that frame by insisting that the political is merely personal. Whether or not she was finally executed—as Malbim assumes—Vashti’s resistance had been nullified.

On Purim and Genocide

One of the extraordinary features of Malbim’s commentary is how little it initially focuses on the fate of the Jews. For Malbim, that fate rested not just on divine providence but on an exceedingly subtle reading of contemporary events by social actors holding a wide a variety of different political aspirations. Ahasuerus had no particular brief against the Jews, according to Malbim, but was ultimately manipulated by his advisor Haman the Amalekite, who bore Mordekhai a personal and hereditary grudge. Without mentioning who the targets of his wrath would be, Haman tells the king that “there is a certain [unnamed] people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom . . . who follow their own laws and do not obey the king.”[16] Haman convinces Ahasuerus that extermination of the Jews will be welcomed by all the nations of the empire whose support he has been seeking. Driven by hatred rather than financial gain, Haman even offers to fill the king’s coffers with the Jews’ money rather than keeping it for himself.

Astoundingly, Ahasuerus turns down Haman’s offer of booty because his own intentions at this point are merely to “improve his nation by destroying the harmful religion and its vices.”[17] One may easily perceive here an echo of Malbim’s critique of reformers and state agents in his own day who claimed to be interested in public morality or “progress” but whose efforts were often construed by traditionalists as efforts to assimilate or destroy the Jewish people.[18] Be that as it may, Ahasuerus ultimately accedes to Haman’s request and once more sends letters throughout the land allowing the Jews to be exterminated.[19] Later, when Esther intervenes with the king on her people’s behalf yet a third group of letters must be sent, giving the Jews the right to bear arms in self-defense.[20]

So where does this leave us? A curious Talmudic text suggests that “had it not been for the first set of letters” in Megillat Esther “no remnant or remainder of the Jews would have survived.”[21] As Rashi glosses, the “first set of letters” refers to the one that mandated male control of the household in the first chapter of Esther. The rule that every man should “speak the language of his own people” is taken to mean that women who marry a man from a different ethnic or linguistic group than their own must limit themselves to speaking in their husbands’ language.[22] But such a decree was so clearly daft and unenforceable that it cast all of the king’s subsequent decrees into disrepute.[23] When the letter about exterminating the Jews later arrived, most people dismissed it as another laughable farce, and this allowed the Jews to mount a successful defense against the relatively few who did attack them.

Malbim and a few other interpreters have a different reading, whose direct source in rabbinic literature (if there is one) I have not yet been able to identify. Malbim’s version, which he attributes without specific citation to “our sages” reads “if it were not for the first set of letters, the second set could never have been fulfilled.”[24] On this reading, the second set of letters were the ones permitting the extermination of the Jews, and the meaning is that Haman could never have conspired to kill the Jews in a constitutional monarchy.[25] The first set of letters disempowering women paved the way for Ahasuerus to become an absolute monarch and it was only under those conditions that a genocide of the kind Haman plotted could ever have a chance to succeed. To put it simply, the murder of Vashti and the suppression of women throughout the empire paved the way for Haman’s projected Holocaust.

Though this is bound to be provocative, I have referred to Malbim’s commentary on Esther as proto-feminist for a few reasons. First, because this commentary demonstrates how the systematic domination of women served broader imperial interests and was also enhanced by blurring the relation between patriarchal domination of households and despotic domination of the empire. Under Ahasuerus, women (starting with Vashti) had to be controlled or neutralized so that the household could serve as a model for the state, even while the state claimed to be modeled on the structure of households. This sort of mutually reinforcing dynamic or political cosmology is by now a commonplace of social analysis, but it wasn’t in 1845.[26]

Malbim shows, moreover, that the political project of misogyny formed a necessary prelude to authoritarian rule and genocide. Jews reflecting on Purim ought to reflect as well on the ways in which the fate of the Jews cannot help but be embedded in larger structures of power that also determine the fates of other groups, including women and all those other peoples (some of them also quite vulnerable) who also inhabit our necessarily imperfect political regimes. Though the Megillah and its commentators certainly assume a transcendent significance to the travails of Israel, a reader shaped by Malbim’s commentary would also have to conclude that those travails can only be understood by reference to a much broader canvas of interlocking stories, political calculations, and tribulations suffered by others. “Without the first set of letters,” Malbim reminds us, “the second set of letters could never have been fulfilled.”

Concluding Thoughts

Malbim’s interests in the commentary on Esther bear witness more to his thoughtfulness as a reader than to any explicit political project, and that is why I only referred to his commentary, in all fairness, as proto-feminist. I do not mean to imply that he would himself have subscribed to any of the much later developments in feminist thought or practice, including those that seem to be at issue in contemporary Orthodox Jewish life. Given his attitude toward Reform in his own day, it would be odd to portray him as a hero of religious reforms in ours. But this is actually one of the reasons that his commentary on Esther is so profoundly unsettling. He isn’t trying to sell anything but a better reading, grounded in rabbinic sources, and a more nuanced appreciation for the dynamics of power. The fact that this leads him to an unprecedented analysis of gender politics in Scripture tells me that this is a discussion we ought to be having no matter what our stance on hot-button contemporary issues might be. At the very least, it will make us better students of Torah.

This is not a small thing. Does the fact that Malbim presaged later developments in gender theory and linked his observations about gender and politics to Scriptural interpretation mean that we can begin to have non-defensive conversations about these matters in religious settings? That our sons and daughters might be able to confront the complex realities of power in their own lives as well as Tanakh rather than focusing almost exclusively on fanciful midrashim about Vashti’s physical deformities?  Or that we might recapture the importance of political philosophy to almost any kind of intelligible conversation about sacred Scripture? That may be a lot to rest on the back of one short commentary on a biblical book, but I am hardly deterred. Purim, after all, is a holiday of miracles.

Malbim learned about the dynamics of power on his own flesh in the decades following the publication of his commentary on Esther.[27] In 1859 he became chief rabbi of Bucharest in Romania but was denounced as an enemy of the state because of his fierce opposition to various reforms and assimilationist policies. Moses Montefiore intervened to save him from being sent to prison but he was exiled and forced to seek redress from the Turkish government in Constantinople. He spent the remaining twenty years of his life embroiled in controversies with reformers and state authorities in a variety of cities across Europe and finally died in 1879 while traveling to assume a new rabbinical post. A committed traditionalist of deep learning and broad intellectual horizons, Malbim can be read with profit today not just for the specific positions he took (these are inextricably tied to his time and circumstances) but for the habits of mind and spirit that writings like his commentary on Esther exemplify. Within a traditional frame, he sought more complex and contextually coherent understandings of Jewish literature and Jewish life. At a moment when many are struggling with renewed passion to comprehend the intersection of different potential forms of oppression (racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny) and also questioning the forms of political discourse in which more constitutional or more authoritarian trends might come to the fore of our national life, Malbim should be on the curriculum.

[1] See Esther 1:3; Esther Rabbah 1:4.

[2] See, for example, Esther Rabbah 3:14.

[3] See Megillah 12a.

[4] Malbim on Esther 1:4.

[5] Esther 1: 5.

[6] See Esther 1:3-5.

[7] Esther 1: 10-11.

[8] Esther 1: 11; Esther Rabbah 3: 14.

[9] Esther Rabbah 3: 13-14.

[10] See Megillah 12b.

[11] See Malbim on Esther 1: 9.

[12] Malbim on Esther 1: 16.

[13] See Esther 1:9 and Malbim on Esther 1: 17.

[14] Esther 1: 19-22.

[15] Malbim on Esther 1: 22.

[16] Esther 3: 8.

[17] See Esther 3: 11, in which the king gives Haman the treasure to do with as he sees fit, as well as Malbim’s comment on that verse.

[18] Malbim would not have been alone in that regard. See for example Barukh Halevy Epstein’s account of rabbinic interactions with the Jewish reformer, Rabbi Max Lilienthal, in his memoir Mekor Barukh: Zikhronot Me-Hayyei Ha-Dor Ha-Kodem Vol. IV, chs. 43-44 (Vilna: Rom Publishers, 1928), 1850-1927. For an analysis of this and other relevant sources, see Don Seeman and Rebecca Kobrin, “‘Like One of the Whole Men’: Learning, Gender and Autobiography in R. Barukh Epstein’s Mekor Barukh,” Nashim 2 (1999): 59-64.

[19] Esther 3: 12-14.

[20] Esther 8: 10-14.

[21] Megillah 12b; also see Pesikta Zutrata (Lekah Tov) Esther 1:22.

[22] Rashi on Esther 1: 22. See similarly Hakhmei Zarfat cited on the same verse in Torat Hayyim: Megillat Esther ‘im Perushei Ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 2006), 48. See Esther Rabbah 4: 12 and additional sources cited by Torah Shelemah Megilat Esther (Jerusalem: Noam Aharon Publishers, 1994), 50n.187.

[23] See Rashi to Megillah 12b s.v. Iggerot Rishonot.

[24] Malbim to Esther 1:22

[25] Ibid.

[26] For a few ethnographic treatments of the relationship between cosmologies of gender and state regimes, see, for example, Carol Delaney, The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Sally Cole, Women of the Praia: Work and Lives in a Portuguese Coastal Community (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991); Rebecca J. Lester, Jesus in our Wombs: Embodying Modernity in a Mexican Convent  (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

[27] See Yehoshua Horowitz’s  entry on Malbim in Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. XI (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1971), 822-23.

[metalshea]

A Perfectly Doomed Christmas Carol: A Reflection on A Perfect Circle Through Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”.

Reflecting on the holiday season, I’m a little surprised at myself.  Maybe it’s because the lead up to Christmas was shorter here in the United States than it usually is.  The Thanksgiving holiday, our historic kick off for the Christmas season, was very late this year and so in some ways it doesn’t quite feel like Christmas time, yet. And so, I have yet to watch what is easily my favorite Christmas movie, A Muppet Christmas Carol.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are a TON of great Christmas movies: Die Hard (YES IT IS A CHRISTMAS MOVIE—I WILL FIGHT YOU!), Elf, A Christmas Story, Christmas Vacation, The Santa Claus, Miracle on 34th St., It’s A Wonderful Life, and, of course, How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the original with Boris Karloff, not that Jim Carey nonsense), but there’s something about A Christmas Carol that resonates so clearly and seems so relevant beyond the holiday season.  I can’t say that about many Christmas movies.  

Ok, maybe Die Hard.  Yippee Kai Yay!

Maybe it’s because I share a birthday with Charles Dickens, but I really love and appreciate his writings. There is a clear moralism running his body of work that is still pertinent even today.  He continuously tries to call attention to disaffected working peoples, structuralized disadvantage, and implores his readers to simultaneously feel empathy and outrage.  A Christmas Carol does this as well.  I won’t spend long summarizing it because, really, who hasn’t seen or read it in the English-speaking world?  If you haven’t, go check out A Muppet Christmas Carol, it’s surprisingly accurate to the original text and Michael Caine plays a great Ebenezer Scrooge.  Or just read the novella and prepare to be shocked at the surprisingly unsettling atmosphere of the book.  What, surprised that the original is actually pretty creepy? It’s supposed to be a ghost story!

“Dude, when are you going to get to the music?”

We’re getting there, I promise!

A Christmas Carol follows Ebenezer Scrooge, a deeply flawed and emotionally insecure man who insulates himself from his insecurities by devoting himself entirely to his business.  He takes an “I got mine” approach to life, disparages and ignores the outside world—often at the expense of those in his employ or influence, and in the process begins to literally damn himself. Not to mention his name is literally synonymous with miser.  Scrooge’s deceased friend appears to him in spirit form and basically sets him up for a round of speed dating with 3 ghosts who show him the error of his ways by bringing him through his past, the present world around him, and the very not too distant future.  

Sounds familiar, right?  If you speak English, it should ring a few bells even if you haven’t read any Dickens. The literary device he uses is pretty common in Western literature because it basically invokes Dante’s Divine Comedy: the idea of a character being led by around by spirit and shown a picture of the world around them or the world that awaits them.

“Dude, now you’re shifting to Dante Alighieri?!  When are you getting to the metal music??”

Right now.

Just like Dante and Dickens, Maynard James Keenan uses the same literary trope in the writing of A Perfect Circle’s, The Doomed.  

Did I just blow your mind?

Before I go further, if you haven’t heard the song, you probably should.  Otherwise none of this will make much sense.  If you have heard it, give it another listen.  Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDvfbvuJtS8

When this song dropped in 2018, it immediately resonated with me because of it’s use of religious symbolism, particularly the invocation of the Beatitudes.  When I started actually reading the lyrics, I realized just what Maynard did in it’s construction and started to get excited, he basically alludes not only to the Beatitudes, the Seven Deadly Sins, and the Gospels, but the narrative structure of the song alludes to Dante.  This religiously-raised, English-majoring musician and metalhead in started bouncing for joy.  Not only is the song pretty damn good, but it has a freaking point!  Hold me, Maynard!

But it’s Christmas, dammit, so we’re going to ignore Dante for now and instead examine this through the lens of A Christmas Carol.  

Truth be told, I actually think A Christmas Carol is a better lens to view the song than Dante, anyway, but I’m pretty damned sure that Maynard wasn’t even remotely considering it when he wrote The Doomed, let alone the absolutely glorious Muppet version.  Alas!

Ok, let’s start with the song itself and maybe some context. 

The Doomed is a damning portrayal of our current societal state.  You could probably make an argument around equality or neoliberalism, Trump’s America or capitalism, or the global refugee crisis, but I don’t think it’s meant to be so narrow a commentary, and for our purposes, I’d rather focus on the religious language at play here.  

The song was released in 2018 and was probably written closer to, if not in 2017.  At the time there was a growing on focus on the plight of the disaffected and a growing dialogue about how people interact with others with different life experiences.  There was a Huffington Post OpEd from around that time that this was likely being written titled “I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People” that sums up the broader societal dialogue quite nicely.  I wonder if Maynard read it as well?

Before going too far down that particular rabbit hole, let’s actually break down the lyrics.  The vocals open:

Behold a new Christ    Behold the same old horde  Gather at the altering  New beginning, new word And the word was death  And the word was without light  The new beatitude "Good luck, you're on your own" 

To my eyes, the song opens from the perspective of Dante’s Virgil.  Or, since this is Christmas, the Ghost of Christmas Present (GCP).  In my head, I picture the scene where Scrooge and the spirit stand outside the window looking into the Cratchit’s kitchen.  The spirit explains to Scrooge what he is seeing, an impoverished family making the best of what they have.  In Maynard’s retelling though we aren’t greeted with a touching Christmas scene, but rather a new Sermon on the Mount.  In the opening lines of the song, he immediately calls to mind the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.  But it is the last two lines of the verse that are the most striking and set the tone for the rest of the song:

The new beatitude "Good luck, you're on your own" 

For those who are not Christian, or for those Christians that never learned about The Beatitudes, it helps to have some extra context.  The Sermon on the Mount is a scene from the Gospel of Matthew and elaborated on in the Gospel of Luke.  Jesus Christ gives a lengthy sermon to a crowd and during this famous speech, he issues The Beatitudes.  You can kind of think of them as the New Testament’s answer to the Old Testament’s 10 Commandments and be kind of in the right ballpark.  For all the hype and focus in Western society on the 10 Commandments, the Beatitude are often overlooked by a lot of Christians.  Which is kind of bonkers if you think about it and may hopefully become more apparent by the end of this article.  

Christianity is big on layering imagery and call-backs to earlier Biblical writings.  Seriously, Christians love that shit.  It adds a feeling a depth and purpose to The Scripture.  We can sort of view the weightiness of The Beatitudes through the doctrine of the Trinity.  Basically the idea that The Son, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one in the same being.  Ergo Jesus Christ is the literal physical manifestation of God.  Just as God the Father literally wrote the 10 Commandments in stone, Jesus Christ, The Son, issues a new set of Commandments, The Beatitudes, in the Sermon on the Mount.  

Yeah, they’re supposed to be THAT important.

Most Christians can name probably 6-7 of the 10 Commandments without too much thought, but they probably don’t know The Beatitudes, at least as a term. That being said, almost everyone would recognize them:

Blessed are the poor in spirit; the kingdom of heaven is theirs.  Blessed are the patient; they shall inherit the land.  Blessed are those who mourn; they shall be comforted.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for holiness; they shall have their fill.  Blessed are the merciful; they shall obtain mercy.  Blessed are the clean of heart; they shall see God.  Blessed are the peace-makers; they shall be counted the children of God.  Blessed are those who suffer persecution in the cause of right; the kingdom of heaven is theirs.  Blessed are you, when men revile you, and persecute you, and speak all manner of evil against you falsely, because of me. (Matthew 5:3-11)

The Gospel of Luke, a later chronological writing than the Gospel of Matthew, further expounds upon The Beatitudes, adding a bit more flavoring and essentially turns them into action items rather than just virtuous states of being:

27 And now I say to you who are listening to me, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who treat you insultingly. 29 If a man strikes thee on the cheek, offer him the other cheek too; if a man would take away thy cloak, do not grudge him thy coat along with it. 30 Give to every man who asks, and if a man takes what is thine, do not ask him to restore it. 31 As you would have men treat you, you are to treat them; no otherwise… 36 Be merciful, then, as your Father is merciful. 37 Judge nobody, and you will not be judged; condemn nobody, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and gifts will be yours; good measure, pressed down and shaken up and running over, will be poured into your lap; the measure you award to others is the measure that will be awarded to you.  (Luke 6:27-31, 36-38)

Luke also offers a complimentary set of warnings to accompany the Beatitudes, known as the 4 Woes:

Woe upon you who are rich; you have your comfort already. Woe upon you who are filled full; you shall be hungry. Woe upon you who laugh now; you shall mourn and weep.  Woe upon you, when all men speak well of you; their fathers treated the false prophets no worse.  (Luke 6:24-26)

When I was growing up in a very devoutly Catholic household, I remember my mother telling me that as important as the 10 Commandments are to the foundations of what was then my faith, The Beatitudes were absolutely critical to my being a good Catholic and, what’s more, no person could ever hope to have a shot at entering heaven without ascribing to them.

Something about a rich man, a camel, the eye of a needle, and the prosperity gospel, amirite?  But I digress.

It’s funny, re-reading the Sermon on the Mount and Luke 6, after I don’t know how many years, I really am struck by how the Beatitudes really are positive action items.  The quotes I provided above don’t really delve too deeply into how the broader context of the Beatitudes demand positive action.  This is article is going to be long enough as is without dissecting the full text of the Sermon on the Mount from both Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but they’re interesting pieces to read from a moral philosophy perspective even if you’re not religious.  Where the Commandments say essentially, “Don’t do this or else”, the Beatitudes basically say: “Do these things, act this way, and you will be rewarded; don’t do them and you won’t be”.  That is a MARKED difference in tone from the Commandments, and it is baffling why as a religion Christianity focuses so much on the consequences of negative behavior as opposed to the positive outcomes for good behavior.

Getting back to the song, it is through the Beatitudes that all people are called to approach and treat others with compassion and empathy.  As the GCP shows us though, this is no longer the case: you are no longer expected to care for others, and you should not expect them to care about you. You’re on your own now.

As The Doomed progresses, we get a better picture of scene the GCP shows to Scrooge.  The underlying music shifts to more of a march feel.  There is a call-and-response at play between an unnamed preacher, the New Christ, and his followers, The Same Old Horde:

Blessed are the fornicates May we bend down to be their whores  Blessed are the rich  May we labor, deliver them more Blessed are the envious  Bless the slothful, the wrathful, the vain  Blessed are the gluttonous  May they feast us to famine and war

Maynard covers a lot of ground in these two short verses.  He’s alluded 3 Gospels already--2 of which we’ve dug into, I’m not getting into John here, but yeah that allusion to the Word comes from there (among other places… Christianity is big on scriptural call-backs, what can I say?)--and now he’s inverting the Beatitudes by referencing the 7 Deadly Sins and even the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Damn. Maynard’s smart.

Like the Beatitudes, the 7 Deadly Sins are familiar to most Christians, but they’re fundamentally misunderstood. They are not explicitly Biblical, and their legacy mostly comes down to us through early Christian mysticism and through the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.  They are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride. What sets these apart from sin as it’s normally understood is that they are not actions.  According to Aquinas, sin is a moral evil that is not in accord with reason or Divine Law and it fundamentally requires some type of decision and action.  The 7 Deadly sins are more states of emotional being that lead us to moral evils. Through wrath and anger, we’re prone to violence and poor decision making.  Through sloth, we’re prone to inaction in the face of evil.  And so it goes.

The 7 Deadly Sins are inherently selfish mindsets.  They are considered so in Western culture because allowing ourselves to fall victim to our lust or greed is  the same as saying that we are sating ourselves potentially at the expense of others.  Such a mindset is in direct conflict with the words of Christ vis-a-vis the Beatitudes. The contrast is so strong that, in a way, you could look at The Beatitudes and the 7 Deadly Sins as extremes on the end of a spectrum. It is the human condition to err towards the Sins, but it is imperative for all humans to move towards the Beatitudes, not only for their salvation but for the betterment of society (anybody else catching a whiff of Freud here?  Id/Ego? Just me?).  Maynard flips the script: the worst impulses of humanity now guide us.

The music shifts again, this time to something more innocent sounding, and we hear our Scrooge speak for the first time:

What of the pious, the pure of heart, the peaceful? What of the meek, the mourning, and the merciful? 

It’s a little difficult to tell if it’s our Scrooge or GCP who utter the next two lines, I like to think it’s the latter, but the sentiment is the same either way:

All doomed All doomed

In this new world, those that embrace the values and actions embodied by the Beatitudes are left behind.  

The music picks up again and the GCP again address Scrooge.  The atmosphere almost feels more somber and reflective:

Behold a new Christ  Behold the same old horde  Gather at the altering  New beginning, new word And the word was death  And the word was without light  The new beatitude: "Good luck"

This repetition of the earlier verse brings us back to Dickens’ scene outside the Cratchit’s: The spirt echoes the earlier words of Scrooge while Scrooge solemnly considers Tiny Tim’s health: “’If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’”

The music shifts, again, this time back to the innocent, meek section we heard earlier in the song. Scrooge interrupts GCP:

What of the pious, the pure of heart, the peaceful?  What of the meek, the mourning, and the merciful?  What of the righteous? What of the charitable?  What of the truthful, the dutiful, the decent? 

Once again Scrooge directly references the Beatitudes, but this time he expands beyond them, alluding to people that embody other parallel virtues to those referenced in the Gospels. There’s a sense of pleading and desperation to his words as Scrooge tries to capture the gravity of the implications of GCP’s descriptions.

The music shifts again to the marching beat, with a dissonant guitar lead, purposefully played off key. GCP is becoming angry and annoyed. “You’re not getting it, stupid”.  He responds through Maynard, who now sings with a clear edge to his voice:

Doomed are the poor  Doomed are the peaceful  Doomed are the meek  Doomed are the merciful 

For the word is now death  And the word is now without light  The new beatitude:

GCP directly calls out a number of the virtues of the Beatitudes, but this time his cynicism is crystal clear. He finally exclaims to Scrooge, anger boiling over:

Fuck the doomed! You're on your own.

Again, I’m reminded of Dickens and the final exchange between Scrooge and GCP.  Scrooge laments the state and health of those whose lives he has just seen.  The sprit, angry that Scrooge still seems to be missing the big picture—that Scrooge bears responsibility for their state, let alone their opinions of him—uses Scrooge’s own words to drive the point home: “’Are there no prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?’".  It’s a final, damning rebuke for Scrooge to ponder before being confronted by the most terrifying spirit of the night.  Just as we are left to ponder the implications of the “New Beatitude”.

See, I told you there was a good reason to use GCP as the narrator as opposed to Dante.

Plus, Christmas.

So there.

Some final thoughts:

I’ve been struggling how to relate the two children that accompany the GCP in A Christmas Carol, named Ignorance and Want, back to “The Doomed”.  In some ways they could be tied into the 7 Deadly Sins as they are both expressions of pure human selfishness, but, you know, square peg/round hole. Still food for thought though.

Even as I have moved in my own faith journey from Catholic to absurdist (a la Albert Camus), I still refer to myself as “philosophically Catholic”, and have been known to reference Luke’s version of The Sermon on the Mount in casual conversation, specifically this gem:

By what right wilt thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me rid thy eye of that speck, when thou canst not see the beam that is in thy own? Thou hypocrite, take the beam out of thy own eye first, and so thou shalt have clear sight to rid thy brother’s of the speck. (Luke 6:42)

I love that image.

The Beatitudes, The Woes, the 7 Deadly Sins, and their larger roles as measures of personal morality are really meaningful to me.  Even though I don’t consider myself Christian, I still ascribe to them.  They are guideposts towards achieving The Golden Rule—if such a thing could be considered a state of virtue—and in their broader context they are calls for us to engage of certain types of action, especially considering Matthew 25:36:

I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.  

Re-reading The Beatitudes for this post, I’ve also been so struck by how little sense of primacy there is in them compared to the Commandments.  There’s no explicit demand that we follow the Christian God, but that we embrace the Beatitudes and their broader contexts as moral bedrock. Christ reflects later in the Gospel of Luke that not using them as the basis for our personal morality would be like building a house in a flood zone on dirt instead of bedrock.  There’s a lot of truth to that, and that message transcends a lot of the nonsense that tends to lead people away from the religion.

I think Maynard might be coming from a similar viewpoint.  The values that we are supposed to espouse and embody are outdated in this New World. Kindness is obsolete.  Those that embrace virtue are kicked aside just as readily as those that we would otherwise consider to be lesser than ourselves.  The Doomed urges us to reflect on this and consider how we view the people and world around us.  Like Scrooge, in order for us to make a substantive change in ourselves and around us, we need to really consider what we’re seeing before us in the present moment.

And it’s not a pretty picture.

But it’s not all bleak. The last line of the song uses the conjunction and pronoun “You’re” and “your”, respectively.  Both variations of “You”.  We could spend hours discussing and dissecting the grammatical implications of the lyrics, but suffice it to say: as much as a condemnation as the last line is, it’s also a recognition that it’s on us to act.  No one else.  

I’ll end this 3500-word beast on that note.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Let’s do a little bit better every day.

Shea \m/

[cynicaesura]

I guess it’s time to weigh in on this Tara Gilesbie discourse

Never thought I’d see the day when My Immortal theorizing got so big so fast it became legitimate discourse

No but seriously the way we all talk about this fic, the way we lie in wait waiting for someone to come forward and tell us the true story of the infamous legend...this is some goddamn religious shit. Like every now and then some new “evidence” arises and some claim that it’s the 2nd coming of Tara and the rest of us skeptics just keep waiting like the Jews for their messiah.

Now we have this new, seemingly far more concrete piece of evidence handed to us. This fuckin relic of a FictionPress account. For a lot of people this accountholder seems to be the Jesus Christ of My Immortal like who new that this whole thing was really a biblical allegory?

I’ll begin by stating my position on My Immortal’s authorship for the past several years:

I don’t think it was a troll fic. Now I haven’t gotten around to reading @thischarmingmothman’s essay on the subject (I’m not even kidding I’ve had it bookmarked for years) but I just don’t think it was fake. As many have stated, it was written before the age of in-depth internet trolling. This of course, doesn’t really mean anything. There have always been hoaxes. There was even the widely popular Ted the Caver story back in 2001 (if you aren’t familiar, this is a creepy story about a guy who discovers this weird shit whilst caving. The author was actually a caver and he kept a journal of what he would find and decided it would be neat to spook his friends and family on his blog so he wrote this really elaborate story. Great read. Highly recommend.) But I can’t think of anything that has ever come close to matching the amount of effort that would need to be put in to perpetuate the character of Tara Gilesbie. Like this is YEARS of slow upkeep on her relationship with Raven, their other social media accounts, her other less popular fics after she abandoned My Immortal. Hoax stories don’t often expand their universes past the site the author posted on. Maybe I’m just stubborn but I cannot believe that this piece is anything but genuine garbage.

Now about this new evidence. I think that it’s shaky at best. Here’s the timeline:

August 2, 2017: “Tara” posts an update on her formerly-unknown FictionPress account

August 3, 2017: someone under the username Fokenprepz posts a comment on the Tara Gilesbie wiki page. The comment is only a link to the FP account. This account was created that day.

August 3, 2017: That same day another user called Arch Wizard Megumin updated the Tara Gilesbie page with the new information about the FP account updating. They have an apparently very active history on this and other wiki sites. They said they saw the comment from Fokenprepz and decided to check it out.

August 27, 2017: The FP account apparently began gaining some traffic. Enough so for the mod to post another short update about getting messages and clearing up questions about authorship and outside accounts.

August 30, 2017: @marauders4evr makes the post that caused everyone on this site to lose their shit. This is where we all discovered the FP account. Popular user in the fandom discovers news of Tara? Yeah that’s going to gain ground FAST. They have stated that they saw the new link on the My Immortal wiki and got excited that there is potentially activity coming from the real author.

August 31, 2017: The FP account makes a “final update” regarding why they were only now posting on FP and never said anything on FF.net or any of the other known accounts.

There’s a lot of elements to this story. A big red flag is that no one had ever heard about or knew of this FictionPress account before this month. It never posted anything other than the original “I’m Tara and I like to cut my wrists” bio. Not a fic. Not a proper bio. Not a complaint about other accounts being hacked. Nothing. The issue is, of course, that first update. That first goddamn update. Actually, you know what? No it’s not a fuckin problem because the bio doesn’t have a datestamp. The only things we know for sure is that the account was made a month after the FF account and it has a username bearing a striking resemblance to all of Tara’s other apparent accounts.

Here’s the thing about that information. It doesn’t mean shit. You know what FictionPress allows you to do? Change your username/url. Yes, I literally created a fucking account on that website just so I could test it (I’d be interested in seeing screenshots of their home page because mine still shows the old username in the corner even though the profile has the new one.) So anyone who had a FP account in 2006 and has been following this story for any menial amount of time could have thought to themself, “Hey, you know what would be funny? If I logged back into my old FP account and changed the bio and url to fuck with the world.” Shit would take about 3 seconds.

The other big flag about all this to me is that the account claims that they had no other accounts outside their FF and FP accounts. I think this is just a convenient way for this new pariah to get out of having to prove their identity through photos/videos matching the images we’ve seen of Tara and Raven on YouTube, Myspace, etc. I don’t think 2 random teenage girls would read My Immortal in 2006 and decide to spend a few years pretending to be the goth-obsessed writers on other websites.

So who did all this? I don’t know. Probably some random one of us who’s been following this story for a while and decided it would be funny to make everyone lose their shit over it again. I’ll give them this, the 11 year old FictionPress account is a good angle, but it’s just not very credible. I think this person went and edited all that stuff and then made an account on the famous wiki to subtly share the link. The fact that there is no explanation for how Fokenprepz found the FP page is heavily suspicious. A lot of people are blaming the other 2 people who brought this information to light, Arch Wizard Megumin and marauders4evr, but I believe these two when they say they just got their info from that comment.

Now the question still remains: Who is Tara Gilesbie? Did she ever really exist? Does she exist still today? Will we ever know the truth?

Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever know. Not to get dark or anything but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if she killed herself in like high school or something. Anyone who’s that stuck in their emo phase doesn’t really survive. There’s a lot of holes to the story. Maybe someday we’ll get conclusive evidence of the fic’s authorship. And maybe, just maybe, we all secretly hope we never do.

[confrontingbabble-on]

The bible writers created the same dubious, inconsistent, incoherent, irrational, ignorant, carnal, bloodthirsty crazy-ass mofo god...as their rulers were...

“...the Bible is chock-full of examples of God just messing with people, apparently for shits and giggles. For example ...

#6. God Goes Fear Factor On Ezekiel...

The Book of Ezekiel is about a conversation between God and the priest Ezekiel, mostly about why God is going to destroy Jerusalem (spoiler: because they're a bunch of assholes). Ezekiel is supposed to go to the city and tell them about it, but God doesn't really expect them to listen (remember: assholes).

To make things fun, there's a catch: Ezekiel can't just tell them God's plan. Instead, he takes away Ezekiel's ability to speak, and then forces him to communicate the message through an elaborate game of charades. See? Fuckin' with us.

First, God gives Ezekiel a scroll and tells him to eat it.

OK, that's not the weirdest thing God has ever told someone to do. Plus it tastes like honey. So far, so good. Then God tells Zeke to construct a little scale model of Jerusalem out of clay, and stomp the crap out of it like a bully wrecking a sand castle. This is, we guess, the less subtle part of the prophecy.

Then God just wants to see how far he will go. He tells Ezekiel to lie down on his left side and stay there for 390 days. Then he's allowed to roll over -- presumably with one hell of a cramp and a bad case of bed sores -- but he has to lie on his right side for another 40 days, pointing at the squashed remains of the Jerusalem model the whole time so that people really get the message.

God, snickering, just cannot believe he's doing all this, so he really ups the game: The entire time, Ezekiel is allowed to eat nothing but bread that he cooked on a bonfire of human poop. This is the part of the prank show where most victims would start looking around for hidden cameras, but not Ezekiel. He just stoically bargains God down to cow poop instead and mistakenly calls it a victory.

#5. God Thinks It's Hilarious When You Eat Your Kids...

At various points, the Bible dictates that children who disobey their parents should be executed, while those who mock their parents should merely get their eyes plucked out. At one point, kids who laugh at a prophet for being bald get eaten by bears. Oh, that doesn't mean God really, really wants children to be good. He just hates kids. And you, for having kids. In fact, fuck you buddy, eat your kids.

Seriously, God makes that threat a lot. In Leviticus, he warns the people of Israel that if they fail to obey his laws, he will strike them down with famine and disease until "You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters." In Deuteronomy, he does it again, but expands the threat to assure his people that they won't be allowed to eat their nephews instead: "Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating."

In the Book of Jeremiah, God warns the Israelites to cut out all the false idol worship, and if they don't, they're going to lead an unfulfilling spiritual life. Oh wait, no -- eat your kids. And after they're done, he'll make them eat their friends too.

The threat even turns up in Ezekiel, as part of the prophet's rant against Jerusalem. Here, God promises that not only will fathers be forced to eat their children, but the children will also eat their fathers. We don't even know how that's supposed to work, or in what order. Like a ... a sort of Ouroboros human centipede thing? That's messed up, God.

#4. God Hits The Purge Button On Aaron's Sons...

Moses' brother Aaron had two sons, Nadab and Abihu. They appear only briefly in Leviticus, when Moses is showing the priests how to priest properly. Following the rules prescribed by God, Aaron slaughters some animals, cuts off the bits he's supposed to cut off, lays the offerings down on the altar in the correct way, lights up some incense, and waits. God approves of the ritual and makes a big light show to tell Aaron that he did well, and all the priests celebrate a job well done.

Next, Nadab and Abihu do the exact same thing. Only this time, God instantly incinerates the brothers in a furious hellstorm right in front of their horrified father.

Now, there's been a lot of debate among scholars about what exactly Nadab and Abihu did wrong. Some have suggested that they used the wrong incense ("Is that the pine bullshit? Nobody likes that pine bullshit!"), while others think they may have lit the fire wrong. Either way, Moses puts his arm around Aaron and basically tells him, "Yeah, your kids explode sometimes. C'est la vie!"

Aaron's surviving children and nephews then have to bury the dead brothers, but Moses warns them to be doubly careful, because if they make God any angrier by complaining or even not combing their hair properly, he'll probably kill everyone in Israel. Why? Well, you've guided all your Sims to the pool and then removed the ladder. You know why.

#3. God Has Ten Plagues, And He Is Going To Use TEN Plagues...

Exodus: Moses wants to free the Israelites from Egypt, but the Pharaoh won't let them go, so God sends ten horrible plagues against the Egyptians to show them who's boss. After each plague, the Pharaoh remains stubborn, so God has to step it up a notch, over and over again, until he's finally just straight-up killing babies.

The Pharaoh and the Egyptians are obviously the bad guys here and deserve everything that's coming to them -- unless you consider that, according to the Bible itself, the Pharaoh did not restrain the Israelites by his own free will. Every time God threw frogs or locusts or bees at him (bees were one of the plagues, right?) the Pharaoh considers letting the Israelites go, but God forces him to change his mind.

After each passage that describes one of the plagues, the Bible says, "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart." God is playing both sides of this conflict. Even after Pharaoh finally releases the people and sends them out toward the Red Sea, God makes him change his mind again and send his army out to pursue them to a watery grave. Though he's always painted as the villain, the Pharaoh didn't really have any say in the matter from the beginning.

Biblical scholars have argued about why God would directly intervene in the Pharaoh's free will to constantly force him to defy God's own wishes, and the best response that they can give is that God just wanted to prove his power to everyone. In short, he promised ten plagues, and dammit, he was going to give them ten plagues. It would have spoiled his fun if the Pharaoh gave up after, like, three.

#2. God Don't Want No Uglies...

The Book of Leviticus is a particularly uneventful part of the Old Testament. It's mostly just a bunch of rules about rituals, instructions for priests, and obscure moral laws that God pulled out of a hat. It's marginally more interesting than reading a law school textbook, if only because of the graphic violence.

But if you can read Leviticus without falling into a coma, you'll notice that God has some pretty high standards for who should be allowed to worship at his altar. There are the slightly more reasonable rules -- like God doesn't want any bald or beardless guys, and nobody who isn't married to a virgin. Absolutely no divorcees or widows, and absolutely no prostitutes. It's like a bizarrely specific dating profile; he stops just short of demanding you be both cut and vegan.

But then he goes on to order that nobody with any kind of "defect" may come to his altar either. What constitutes a "defect"? God has an extensive list that he's very pleased to read out.

It includes no blind people -- in fact, nobody with bad eyesight of any kind. So if you wear glasses or contacts, you're probably out. Nobody who has a crippled foot or hand, so that old college sports injury probably rules you out. If you have a "flat nose," you're out. If you have sores or scabs, you're out. Nobody with a bad back. Nobody with "damaged testicles." And for some reason, God makes it very clear: Absolutely no dwarfs.

These people are still welcome to praise God, of course (and by "welcome," he means "required," unless fiery death is on their bucket list) but they're not allowed to approach him with offerings. Because yea, the lord, he swipeth left on thee.

#1. Don't Ask God For Things When He's Hungover...

While Moses is leading his 600,000-strong congregation of Israelites out of Egypt to the Promised Land, they begin to complain that the Arabian Desert isn't exactly a Golden Corral Buffet. The only thing they have to eat is bread made out of coriander seeds, and they start begging for meat. Moses, who has a direct telephone line to God, can tell that he's getting mad, and tries to get everyone to calm down, but they got the hangries.

These people are still welcome to praise God, of course (and by "welcome," he means "required," unless fiery death is on their bucket list) but they're not allowed to approach him with offerings. Because yea, the lord, he swipeth left on thee.

Eventually, God speaks to Moses and tells him he's changed his mind -- he will give the Israelites some meat. In fact, and we're actually quoting God here , he's going to feed them meat "until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it."

The next day, the Israelites awaken to find their encampment two cubits (around 36 inches in non-Bible units) deep with wild quail for about a day's walk in either direction. There is an ocean of quail. They are stranded in it. The only option? Eat your way out. The Israelites spend two whole days and one night hunting quail before they sit down to the greatest quail feast in history. And afterward, they're struck down with the greatest salmonella outbreak in history.

God technically wasn't lying when he promised that the meat would later come out of their nostrils. That's the poetry of it. Try to imagine 600,000 people simultaneously power-spewing and suffering explosive diarrhea in one densely populated encampment, and you get the horrible idea.

The Bible quickly jump-cuts away from this story, mentioning only that they buried the dead in this place and named it "Kibroth Hattaavah," or "the Graves of Craving."

And God? He dropped the mic.”

http://www.cracked.com/article_24512_6-bible-stories-proving-god-basically-insane-prankster.html

Read also... http://www.cracked.com/article_20694_6-filthy-jokes-you-wont-believe-are-from-bible.html

And... http://www.cracked.com/article_20255_5-shocking-scenes-you-wont-believe-are-in-bible.html

[coloringpagekidsblog-blog]

Coloring Products For Kids

In a child's ages, parents do each possible attempt to create the child bloom in real method. Coloring pages is a commonly used practice by parents at home or teachers in school to impart understanding of the alphabets, animal, monuments, fruits, vegetables, amounts etc.. Kids love coloring activities and they can even learn a whole lot through fun activities & colour. Colors are fascinating and attract kids that's the reason the environment of preschool sessions or play schools includes colors to produce the toddlers or kids cherish and contented. Research shows that the kid in ancient age learns so the knowledge ought to be impeccable that needs to be imparted to children.

Which are the most popular coloring pages for kids?

Utilizing colors could be a superb way to inculcate the nature, trees, water bodies, along with other surroundings. By make use of nature you are able to introduce your own kids and colors, children learn through fun activities. It is also possible to organize a visit to the nearest zoo, to make your ones comprehend the creature. Earth coloring worksheets or pages or action books could be the alternative for preschool teachers and parents. Alphabets drawing worksheets drawing worksheets, Food drawing worksheets and many more are available online in printable coloring pages format.

Entertaining activity-how to draw action

Draw pictures of alphabets, animals, cartoons, numbers, leaves, etc. is one other way to impart understanding in a kid of various living or non living things in the world. It invokes the creativity within a child; make use of paper and vibrant colours to start such drawing activities with your children and make certain to occupy an outdoor location such as gardens, roofs, or patio etc..

Good Parenting at Coloring Book for Kids preschool point

A parenting that is good should think about the understanding about child's preschool period. Based on studies period of child's life span is very important to communicate consciousness. In every country, children often start school when they are just 3 years old and invest in their school's kindergarten or school section before they begin Year 1 - tier - in the age of five or six. When it comes to learning, parents can help with number awareness - as understanding the value and place of numbers, being able to recite from one to 10 is not the same. Talk to your kid about quantities, for example, five is larger than two. Focus on counting; board games and playing dominoes, like Snakes and Ladders, will instruct children how to count while making it fun.

While teaching them the Word of God at the exact same time, searching for a means to keep your child occupied? Christian coloring pages for children are a great tool you can use to do exactly that. As your children colour pictures of characters or Bible stories, it will help reinforce their knowledge of the Bible and of God.

The easiest way to get a good deal of pages for your children to color would be to print out them online. There are loads. Just look for "Christian coloring pages" or "Biblical coloring pages" on your favourite search engine, and you will come across a lot of results.

There are so many unique pictures available that you may have better success using particular terms like "Jesus healing the blind man coloring page" or "Tower of Babel coloring page," as illustrations. This is even a Sunday School lesson at church or a great idea if you're searching to compliment. In a picture that reflects the Bible story you're teaching them, you can let your children colour in these scenarios. After they are done coloring, their picture can be taped by them in their own bedroom, which will enable them remember that specific Bible story.

Alternatively, you could use coloring pages that you give to your child while he or she does something great, such as states thank you, gives a glow, or aids out before being requested. Does it benefit them by giving them an activity they'll enjoy doing, but it also demonstrates to them that it is great to do things that please the Lord.

Websites are not the only place you can get coloring pages. You can find activity books and coloring pages in your In or local bookstore some arts and crafts stores. Because it enables them to observe the arrangement of events, giving your kid a book of Bible stories is great.

Christian bookstores usually also have reproducible coloring books or individual pages from which you can create copies so that precisely the same story picture can be colored in by more than 1 child. This is particularly useful when you want to present to color while the lesson is being taught by you.

Coloring is such a great action that most children love. It gives them chance coordination of hands, as well as a host of other matters. Having coloring books for your kid could be one of the things that you could have. If you are going to get a coloring book for your child, here are some of the Things You Want to consider:

1. Theme - coloring books have types of themes. It might be based like those of even others, creatures, vehicles, or Disney characters. When you're selecting this kind of books for the child, keep in mind that it's a way they could express their imagination rather than by expressing their feelings. So, 1 way you may make him feel brand new, is by simply choosing the one which is appropriate for taste.

2. Complexity - only know your child's degree when it's all about coloring. Coloring books give coloring that is big spaces which make it easier for kids. Their degree of abilities for coloring will surely increase after the kid gets older and also the difficulty about the book. So, if you would like your child select. Don't frustrate them about getting books with one or small images with tons of written instructions.

Coloring books are all of the buzz of late. It's apparent that it revolves round crayons or pencils and coloring pages. But, it is simply coloring? How do something like staying inside the lines be a benefit to me personally?

I was raised during the time of doodle art - ? You have a bunch of markers and elaborate line drawings on numerous themes. I would spend hours coloring these in! Little did I know then that coloring pages were a benefit to my well-being.

Well they were and still are now for people of all ages.

People are creating the adult coloring books bestsellers on Amazon! At the time of this writing, eight of the top twenty books on the bestsellers list, are coloring books for adults. There has to be something behind this increase in interest.

Coloring books' topics are intricate and based more about images, not your childhood counterparts which comprised farm animals heroes, and bunnies. You'd expect to see psychedelic patterns reminiscent of art type pages patterns, dream images including mermaids, dragons, goddesses and angels, and ancient designs of spiritual and religious character.

The fascination, and how do they help you?

The action of applying colored media to complex line drawings is an advantage to comfort and anxiety reduction. You are in a position to place the world aside for the moment and focus on the craft of coloring.

Studies have demonstrates that stress levels dropped. They did note that doodling had no impact on stress. The focus on coloring and shifting the brain allows that blocking of anxiety at the present time. Coloring doesn't have a demand for thought processes and you are able to acquire within your self, isolated from commotion anxiety, and distractions such as listening to music.

The insistent, low-stress, and "no brainer" act of colour lends itself to comfort. The calming effects not only helps to reduce stress levels, but can help to bring you back.

The wonderful part is that anyone can get it done will no skill setup required! Grab a crayon and you are ready to go. You may make it even more enjoyable and have grandkids color or your children with you. Depending upon the age of the ones They could possibly be interested in the coloring books, others still needing to colour flower arrangement that is pretty, astronaut, or a cow.

This suddenly passed my thoughts: When did sport really begin while we were searching though the bookstore shelves looking for skateboarding books for children? From my readings, it began with boards made from timber as the very first of its type, in the 1950s. When browsing was at its peak skateboarding made its way from the market. Hence skateboarders were surfers. And the rest is history, so they say.

However, skateboarding is more than a game or Simply an activity, since it boasts of Advantages to adults and children alike, including the following:

1. It may be considered as an alternative exercise for children who find exercise boring. Truth is, your adrenaline is kicking up high and when you're on board, you won't even recognize the time spent performing the action. Just like a traditional exercise, this is a fantastic way to fight with obesity and diabetes which are now starting to hit on children due to absence of bodily exertion.

2. It can be a means to satisfy new friends and build relationships. Because a great deal of children nowadays are pretty much into it, it's more fun if you share the sport with other children on the block. You may share tips and tricks on how to improve your abilities.

3. It teaches your child the value of patience, discipline, attention, balance, and sportsmanship. You'll have to learn the fundamentals and exercise a whole lot since to learn the art of skateboarding instructs your kid important values that are essential in achievement against the challenges of life.

4. According to studies, it aids in balancing some states instead of simply taking medications for it. Skateboarding teaches kids to concentrate or focus as we have mentioned.

5. It's among the pleasures that are least expensive since all you have to do is purchase a skateboard. Skateboard isn't as costly as one thinks. Prices depend on caliber and size of the board. Your kid does not have to go far to enjoy the sport. Children can play around your neighborhood.

But what if your child isn't a sport? Easy. Publish the game to them by buying fun and friendly skateboarding books. Okay, I know what you are thinking: What if your kids are not book fanatics too? Fact is, your kid doesn't have to enjoy the book as well to be a bookworm. These book authors understand that kids have short attention span, so they have made it certain that the publication is for the young ones.

Coloring pages are a easy and simple way to keep kids entertained and content while they are learning. The internet is the best medium for locating and generating products . Coloring pages are now available in electronic form e.g. pdf documents. Just find order the solution and print the webpages out. It's the use of this internet - simple and affordable.

The option is to purchase books in a store or order the coloring book on the web. If you order the publication online, it may take ages to receive it. You have to wait for the product. It is received by you within minutes of purchase, if you purchase a coloring product in digital form. After your payment is made, an email is sent to you and contains your buy.

Digital coloring pages are much more affordable than coloring books that are expensive. Whereas conventional products only allow each page to be colored, you can print pages over and over again. You can decide what pages to print. There are pages children will like and pages that they will not wish to colour. Digital coloring books give you the choice of which pages to print and volume of webpages.

There is less wasted paper, and that means you are doing your bit for the environment if you are printing pages you want. You don't have to store coloring books. All of the books are saved on your computer or storage device such as a DVD. The internet has made things easier for us, which is one example of this.

[tessatechaitea]

Superman #20

Is this going to be a Mad Men crossover?

Superman could learn a lot from Don Draper. Just let Superman watch Don Draper for a few weeks and Superman will hopefully begin to feel shame for all of his non-Superman behaviors. Although Superman probably isn't that self-reflective. He'd probably just label Don Draper a super villain and then punch him in the face. It's also possible Superman would just be completely charmed by Don Draper's alpha male chocolaty center and realize the true power of being Superman: loads of side-pussy! Having a comic book starring Don Draper and Clark Kent would be like every Batman story where the antagonist is just like The Batman except without privilege! Clark and Don are both secret identities. They both grew up on poor farms. They both took on careers where they basically lie to the public. And both of them wound up fucking women that they work with! Aside from the drinking and smoking and whoring around, they're the same person! Just like in those Batman stories. It's just Clark had the privilege of staying on a farm where he was loved and never moving into a brothel.

Fuck you, Peter J. Tomasi and Patrick Gleason. Fuck you forever.

While I seethe and fume and try not to break down into tears (again!), Superman flies over Hamilton County swinging his big red and blue dick. Everybody in Hamilton County looks up and thinks, "Sure have been a lot of Superman sightings since the Smiths bought that farm!" They might seem happy and content now but just wait until they're saying things like "Sure have been a lot of Doomsday sightings since the Smiths bought that farm!" The Smiths are now the Kents because that's enough of that "these aren't the real Superman and Lois Lane" nonsense. Everything is now integrating nicely because DC Comics wrote a story that told readers to forget that they fucked up everything and please maybe allow them to return things to normal without saying too much about it, hanh? Mxyzptlk helped convince the world that Superman and Clark Kent weren't actually the same person so now it's okay for Clark Smith to take back the role. Plus he's been infused with New 52 Superman essence so he has a right to take back the Clark Kent life and bank account and 401k. Should I have used the word "infused"? Maybe I should have said "infected"? A storm (or Black Dawn?!) is moving in so the Kents spend their time in the basement playing pool. That's one of my main memories from the first time I visited Kansas when I was like five years old. Everybody had these crazy elaborate furnished basements and most of them had a pool table. Apparently some slick salesman made his way through the Midwest convincing everybody that the best thing to do during a tornado was sink some balls in some corner pockets. Um, wink, wink! Lois brings up what happened to them and how they're somehow composed of blue and red lightning now and Clark is all, "Shh! Shh! Things are better now. Don't question it." And Lois is all, "Fuck you, you patriarchal piece of shit! How dare you silence my voice simply because it's not convenient for you! I'm a fucking Pulitzer winner, you Pulitzerless Punk!" Later that night, Batman and Robin decide to skulk around in Clark's barn making farting noises until Clark is forced to stop rubbing his erection on Lois's ass as she pretends to sleep because she is not in the mood to fuck a sexist motherfucker right now. Clark gets dressed in his Superman costume and heads out to the barn to find out why the richest man in Gotham is lurking in his cow's shit. Jon also suits up and sneaks out to see what's going on. He just hears that Batman is there to discuss Superboy when Lois grabs him by the ear. She came out to investigate why Clark's cock wasn't rubbing up against her ass anymore, especially since she was just about to give in because who can say no to that Kryptonian D (aside from Lex Luthor)?

I can still hate Pat and Pete forever while grudgingly appreciating the composition of this panel.

I'm still chuckling about Batman deciding to go up to talk to Superman and he doesn't phone or send a Justice League transmission or just have Alfred walk up and knock on the door to inform Clark that Bruce Wayne is waiting to speak with him in the back of the limousine. No, he decides to head to the farm and hide in the barn until Superman comes out to investigate. How can people say he isn't a great father? Damian must love this shit. In fact, Bruce is probably doing this to bond with his son. "Hey, what say we go hide in Superman's barn and see how long it takes him to figure out we're there?" Lois invites everybody in to eat some pie but not before they hose off the cow shit all over them. Batman stubbornly refuses to look human by enjoying Lois's pie. Um, wink, wink! Batman has just come up to check on Jon and his erratic superpowers. Clark, being the nice one of the two, doesn't ask if Damian has decapitated anybody lately. I mean, seriously, Batman. Take out the mole in your own eye before digging up Clark's pupils or whatever that Biblical saying is. I'm an atheist so I don't have to know it exactly. After all the tests they've run on Jon, Batman's conclusion is that Jon just isn't living up to his potential. Batman thinks he should be more powerful by now. I bet Batman's answer is to jump-start Jon's puberty. How about we get a prostitute in here, stat?! Batman decides something in the environment is keeping Jon from reaching his full potential. He decides to investigate the Cobb Family Dairy Farm. He probably thinks that the thing holding Jon back is being put into the milk by Old Man Cobb. But I bet he finds out the thing holding Jon back is Young Woman Cobb! Jon is probably subconsciously frightened of pulling a Goldie on his best friend, so he's repressing his powers. Also he's hoping to kiss her and doesn't want to blow her brains out the back of her head when the excitement of his first kisses causes him to lose control of his heat vision. Batman sneaks into another barn (Bessie, the prize winning cow's barn this time!) to test Bessie's milk. When he adds his Bat Testing Liquid to the milk, it freaks out and turns into that stuff that Spider-Man's black costume was made of and/or some kind of Swamp Thing crap. The black stuff engulfs Batman as Old Man Cobb wanders in and says, "Oh ho! Another trouble-maker! I'll put him with the rest of them!" Oh no! A mystery! And of course Batman's gut instincts were correct. That's just what Batman needs: more confirmation that anything he believes may as well be proven fact. The Ranking! +2! I hate to award animal murdering psychopaths but I have to admit when a comic book is shining a light on how DC Comics should be writing comic books. This comic book exemplifies what the DC Universe should be (aside from all the pet murder). Batman skulking with Robin in Superman's barn is the best Batman.

[stevejehovahbible]

Genesis 15

1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. God gives Abram mad props for his pious display in front of the magic priest king man Melchizedek, and tells him not to worry about giving up all the plunder, because He totally has Abram’s back. It doesn’t explain why he would be worried in the first place, because he was a rich man at the BEGINNING of the story. Let’s just shrug off that obvious logical blunder and plod on. I sense the rest of this story is going to be a cornucopia of nonsense, so we’ll have a lot to get through.

2  And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3  And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. He can't believe he’s going to have to leave all his vast wealth to a man from Damascus, instead of his own children. Because people that aren’t from this special bloodline are less than people. But that’s not disturbing at all because God God Jesus God Reasons Magic God ShutUpWithYourLogicYouHeretic!!! Notice that Abram isn’t happy with God’s repeated assertions that have no backing evidence. He is an old man, and God has promised to make him the father of a master race (which totally is different from that Hitler idea that is exactly the same in every way because God said it was ok), but he has no children. Abram wants more than empty words, which we’ll soon find out is a BAD thing? Asking for proof leads to trouble. Bible lessons 101. 4  And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 100% literal translation: “You won’t have to leave your money to that commoner, who is obviously beneath you and doesn’t deserve any of your wealth! You’re going to crap out a butt baby from your intestines.” It’s actually saying that it will be his own son that he loves, as the seat of emotions in those days was the bowels. It’s like saying “your ACTUAL son, that you love with all your heart, will be your heir.” But for strict biblical literalists... well... I guess they think God is going to bring one of Abram’s turds to life.  5  And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. This song and dance again? Look at the stars Simba! The great master race of the future looks down on us from those stars. So whenever you feel alone, just remember that those kings will always be there to guide you, and so will I. Now go kill that guy for picking up a stick on Saturday. I have spoken. 6  And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Belief is not a moral action. This is yet ANOTHER example of the bible attempting to validate itself in an illogical way, to instill fear into those reading it. If belief is righteousness, than disbelief is wickedness. It attempts to make the simple act of doubting a “sin.” When this nonsense is taught to children, it subtly programs their brains to accept that trust in God is automatically good, and questioning God is automatically bad. Now where have I heard that before? *cough* mind pattern programing *cough* cult psycology *cough* it’s exactly the was dictators and despots keep their subjects in line *cough cough* never question the great leader *cough*... Sorry... scratchy throat. Now where HAVE I heard that before? Nevermind. So, there’s another issue I’d like to bring up here that is a MAJOR problem in religion. The recycling of bad arguments. The apostle Paul cites this verse multiple times (Romans 4, verses 3, 9, and 22, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23) as EVIDENCE of justification by faith. The assertion is made, unchallenged, and therefore accepted as viable evidence of reality. Simply because Moses wrote that God said “Faith = Awesome” does not make that a reality. Citing that as hard evidence to a further claim you’re attempting to make is automatically fallacious reasoning.

“Say, Bob, did you know that cats can fly?” “Really Jim? How? I’ve never seen a flying cat Jim.” “That’s really not important Bob. Just trust me. Cats can fly.” “Well, I guess I’ll just chose to believe you Jim.” “Excellent choice Bob. Because belief is clearly a choice.” *Months later, Jim throws a cat over a roof with a cat-apult (*snicker*) and tells Bob that his beliefs have been vindicated! Just look at the evidence! Decades later, a scientist uses Jim’s belief in flighted cats, and Bob’s support of that belief to write a law saying all cat owners must get their cat’s wings clipped, or they’ll be shot for international super-treason or something. Cats don’t have wings, so all cat owners are killed. Dogs everywhere high five and sip their tennis ball flavored martinis. In a surprise MNightShamalablahmanon twist ending, Jim was really a dog in an elaborate disguise all along!

7  And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. In case you forgot, let me remind you again. Apparently people in bible times all had severe short term memory loss and needed to be told the same things over and over. “Hey, remember this land I gave you twice already...? Guess what? I brought you here to give it to you. Neat, huh?” Ownership of THIS land is super-duper important for some reason. You’d think God would tell Abram that owning land isn’t really something he should strive for, as it is ultimately materialistic and not a very high minded obsession to have. But He never does.  Instead, He continues to tell Abram that he’s God’s favorite, and that Abram’s kids will totally OWN this patch of earth just because God said so. Abram is the father of the Prosperity Gospel here, and God encourages him EVERY step of the way. Not a very godlike thing to do, but we should expect no less from this character. It fits with everything else He’s done so far.

8  And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? Again, Abram is a BAD believer, because he’s asking for confirmation. This is actually something believers should do a little more. Ask for confirmation. Make sure the things you believe are grounded in reality. It’s a radical idea, I know. Thousands of years later, it’s still kind of seen as a fringe idea within the religious community at large. I’m hoping it becomes more mainstream in the future. 9  And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. “You want proof? Kill some animals for me. I don’t just give proof for free! I need to see something suffer and die first. Get with the program Abram!” 10  And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. Abram kills a cow, a goat, and a sheep and splits them into pieces. Why? Well, because this is an ancient ritualistic custom. Here’s how it works: Two people make an agreement. They slice animals in half, and then walk between the separated halves to symbolically affirm that the same should happen to them if they break their end of the bargain. This ritual is also mentioned in Jeremiah 34. Sounds like the perfect thing for a timeless, eternal, all powerful being to endorse and participate in, right?  11  And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. 12  And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. In essence, Abram is unsure if he can trust the voices in his head about getting this land for his posterity, so he sets up a primitive version of a contract and waits - fully expecting God to physically appear and “sign” it by walking through the dead animals with him. But God doesn’t show, and he spends the day shooing away vultures from the rotting carcasses until he FALLS ASLEEP. That’s right. As with ALL proof offered by believers, the justification for it is 100% in his mind. Nothing happened to the dead animals. God didn’t physically appear. Abram asked for evidence and got NONE, so he made some up in his own head while he slept. For some reason, believers don’t balk at this. I’ll never understand why. There’s another minor thing to address here. I’ve seen it postulated by more than a few apologists that God put Abram to sleep BECAUSE there was no promise on Abram’s part, and he didn’t need to walk through the dead animals. As if that makes a lick of sense. The argument that real proof wasn't offered, just something in his sleeping mind, because of a technicality in the contract. God couldn’t show up physically and offer real proof, because Abram didn’t owe him anything. How does that make any sense at all?       13  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15  And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16  But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. All written down after the fact, by someone who wasn’t there. The words of God in a dream are recorded IN QUOTES by someone writing in generations later, after the supposed promises and prophesy made by God have already come to pass. How very convenient. 17  And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. Ok, so there’s two options here. Verse 12 says, “And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram,” so he is asleep here. Did the smoking furnace and burning lamp pass through the dead animals in his dream? Because that’s REALLY stupid. Or, did this even happen physically with no one present to witness it except a sleeping old man - but it’s recorded as an actual event that happened anyway. Because thats somehow even MORE stupid than the first option. Much like the snake in the Garden of Eden, we’re supposed to extrapolate from the story that the furnace and the lamp are symbols of God, just like the Snake was a representation of the Devil. The text doesn’t actually explicitly say this, and there’s no reason to automatically jump to that conclusion, but the apologists are going to jump anyway. It’s their nature. 18  In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19  The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20  And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21  And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. God promises again, without any actual evidence - that he’s going to give the land to Abram’s descendants, AND further promises that they’ll overthrow all the various “Ites” that dwell there. Because Moses wants the people to believe that God said all this. And they do. Without any evidence. And in thousands of years, nothing there has changed. People still believe things, just because someone tells them God said it.